Which rules do you prefer for the Animation list?

Well, you are the Drama King.

Congrats Miss Vicky, I think you'll do great.

I know that it has to be a specific short, as opposed to the whole series. I only used the words "Looney Tunes" and "Woody Woodpecker" because it was more likely that people would recognize the names, as opposed to the names of the shorts, like "Bugs and Thugs", "8 Ball Bunny" or "Bunco Busters".

I think the chances of a particular Looney Tunes or Woody Woodpecker short making the list are pretty much zero anyway, so the issue of people getting butthurt over one beating a feature is likely non existent.

But people are always going to find something about any list to get butthurt over, so I'm not even going to worry about it.

__________________

Of course. This is what I don't understand, of course they're movies. They just have a different length, I don't know the difference. The only reasons they're classified as shorts is mainly for commercial reasons, you wouldn't go to a cinema to see a 10 minute film,

This is already settled, but academically, I'd like to address this:

But this applies to every combination of image and sound, ever. Are TV shows movies, too?

It seems to me that the context and restrictions in which something is made changes it in meaningful ways. The work that goes into an ongoing, open-ended story is different than the work which goes into a more encapsulated feature, which in turn is different than the work which goes into a short. They're classified differently because they're often trying to accomplish different things and work within different limitations.

A Scanner Darkly and Waking Life are classified as?

Rotoscoped/animation.

Not really. TV shows are created in an deliberately episodic format to fit in the story/development, there are clear divides between episodes. If it's case of splitting up a movie for length for commercial reasons, then I think some TV shows are also movies. Mini-series. Stuff like Fanny and Alexander, Berlin Alexanderplatz and Histoire(s) du Cinema are also movies, even if they weren't all necessarily released in the traditional format.

Some attempt to accomplish different things, but it's not the length that dictates this. It just so happens that what they want needs a certain length, I don't think when a director sets out to make a film he would or should worry about the length, they shouldn't try to fulfill any mainstream requirements. If they want to make something that plays like a feature but is 20 minutes long, let them. Look at Buster Keaton, a lot of his work are classed at shorts but are definitely films, look at A Trip to The Moon, only 13 minutes long but a fantasy epic film that today would be two hours plus because of the commercial world that we live in.

That explains why entire shows wouldn't be movies, but not why individual episodes wouldn't.

And if you acknowledge that TV shows are different because they're developed differently to fit a format, then where is the distinction? The kinds of animated shorts we're talking about are made the exact same way--and indeed, lots of them were created for TV. They've had to operate within similar commercial restrictions.

That's all well and good for movies, but with shows and shorts the causality runs the other way: they create it knowing in advance that it has to fit a certain length, and that inevitably changes the way it's developed. How could it not? If certain things "need" a certain length, then anything that needs a length more than the allotted time has to be scrapped from the get-go.

Well mainly because they are open ended and don't work without the episodes that follow, you could argue that film series do the same and that's true. I think its up to the director and want they want to achieve, they are forced to make commercial decisions but if they want it to be viewed as a single whole then I have no problem with people discussing something as a film. The main thing that prevents it being an official film of course is distribution, it doesn't get sent off and rated like a film, but it could do if the director wanted it to, it's up to them.

The constraints are normally different. Films that are split up into episodes to fit a TV schedule like Fanny and Alexander and Berlin Alexanderplatz, do not have to really work within constraints designed to fit a TV schedule, instead they just split it up. Shorts are not normally made with TV or shorts in mind, its just that the idea is best suited to that length.

Even if shorts are created for TV, the are still aiming to create a 'short film', not a TV show. Stuff like Wallace and Gromit are definitely films, not a TV shows. Just because it's distributed on TV doesn't mean that it's created as a TV show, same with a TV film, it's still a film. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's a 'show/series'.

That's if they are working from a commercial perspective, it's up to the author what they are creating and what it is, a lot of them only trim to make more money or if they are employed under contract, although they would normally know what they're getting into. Again, just because they are told to make a short, I don't know how it means it can no longer be a film, maybe it can no longer be as powerful a film, or the film originally envisioned, but it's still a film.

And no, again that's from a commercial perspective. A lot of films have heavy cuts and edits, and decisions have to be made from a commercial perspective, it's up to directors whether they want control or money, it's their film.

I mostly agree with all the reasons shorts should be treated as films--the only sticking point is whether or not those principles can include shorts without including shows. So this is probably the only part that needs a response:

Right, and I assume you don't determine what is and is not a film based on how it's distributed, anyway. But am I reading this correctly? You think shows/episodes are films?

Some of them, yes.

Hmmm. Which ones, and why just those ones?

Stuff like Poirot, that can be classed as a film.

This: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276115/
Twin Peaks Pilot (has additional ending that makes it feature length)
Something like this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074988/

And then there's loads of shows that are films:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069684/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209122/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070644/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080196
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1236371
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087400/

Yes to shorts. Don't feel strongly about Hybrids. I went with not allowing them with a caveat that allows for stuff like Fantasia or early Betty Boop where there are very small amounts of live-action or it's limited to rotoscope techniques (or the "live actors" are animated in a stop-motion fashion, such as in The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb.)

For those who aren't aware yet:

Miss Vicky has opened the official voting thread for the animated list and based her rules on the preferences that were expressed in this thread.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Sorry, I should have been more specific: I wasn't really asking for examples, but rather, for a common denominator. What trait do "film" shows (and shorts) have that non-film shows don't? We've established it isn't length, or manner of distribution. What's left?

Well officially, it may be those. But I'm talking more from an artistic perspective, and others might disagree with me. I think its to do with structure and its overall artistic intention, if the author wants it to be a film, it is, in my eyes.

With things like an episode of Poriot. It's called an episode, because its released as part of a schedule on TV. But it can exist independently of other episodes, and in design in its built like a feature film. It's the same principle as TV movies, where they are still built like films and don't rely on any other 'episodes', they are just under the tag 'TV' because of the way they are shown. A lot of those TV miniseries that I linked are works of directors who have already made a lot of features, and are similar stylistically to them, their still the auteur and haven't changed anything in terms of structure, building each section like an episode, it's just the length, I'm sure they would still talk about them and class them in the same body of work as the films, the same with that Mike Leigh episode which works independently and is built like a single film, that exists alone.

I guess that's kind of my point: others may disagree, and given how vague the criteria is, I don't think that disagreement is unreasonable. I like your criteria fine, for the record. And I'm fine with shorts being included. I just don't think stylistic impressions can be used to contradict others and/or suggest that the answer should be obvious to everyone.

It's obviously very difficult to categorize these things--I just wish the rest of the thread had acknowledged that difficulty.